X-Plane vs. FSX

Recommended Posts

Back in the day, it was suggested that while MSFS had the better scenery and airport details that X-Plane had better flight dynamics. Is that still the belief today? I'd sure like to get into carrier landings and would consider X-Plane if the flight dynamics were indeed better.Thanks,RH

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's not the case. The quality of flight dynamics is dependent on the aircraft developer, in X-Plane as i FSX. What I like in X-Plane is the stronger influence of winds and turbulence. It's too much turbulence in X-Plane, but FSX feels too static to me. Overall I think X-Plane does it better. But this is not the same as flight model.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You can try the demo to find out which you prefer. Hmmm not sure if the Carrier is in the demo, I think it should be.Hehe ok I just tried it (unsuccessfully) well I got it down ok but bent the prop. Very nice carrier by the way. Very nice graphics.You might need to go to snohomish in the demo to find a carrier.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thoughts after 1 week of XPX:Yes the clouds,rain and scenery in MY FSX are much better and look more realistic overall, but i have Flight Evironment X, Ground Environment X Europe and Ultimate Terrain Europe.If i download realworld weather: in X-plane there is usually more turbulence, in FSX less.I always add some more turbulence in FSX also when i download real weather, then the WEATHER result 'feels' more the same.XPX reacts a bit more to the weather in general.The difference in feel of the FSX and XPX Cessna 172 is mostly in the yaw and pitch controls that act more 'jumpy' and vivid in XPX.In FSX they are 'softer', less violent.As an experienced FSX pilot you adept easily to the a bit more 'challenging' feel of XPX.Wich is more real?Also there seems to be more gravity in the XPX world, aircraft 'fall' a bit quicker.However there is a rather big difference for the Beech Baron 58 in reaction to violent rudder movement in flight:The FSX Baron reacts rather slowly and with some backside movement but less than the Cessna.The XPX Baron reacts violently and it can easely lead to a (spiral) dive.Real life Baron pilots: which is more real ??

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The difference in feel of the FSX and XPX Cessna 172 is mostly in the yaw and pitch controls that act more 'jumpy' and vivid in XPX.In FSX they are 'softer', less violent.As an experienced FSX pilot you adept easily to the a bit more 'challenging' feel of XPX.

A real life Cessna 172 isn't jumpy. It's rather sedate, and lackluster. That's the problem; as some of the challenging feel of some X-Plane models shouldn't be present at all. That's why I'd get annoyed and quit after five minutes. Things are changing though. I could almost say that some X-Plane models are becoming more like my favorite add-ons for FSX................but that would probably just irritate a few developers... :(

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Something else....I haven't tamed the control settings in XPX at all. In newer versions of XP9, I haven't moved the sliders either. Seems the default 172 is more sedate in these two versions without changing settings.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Since I have basically no real world experience I can't tell whether FSX or X-Planes flight model is more accurate. To me X-Plane has a more fluid and realistic feel.This video suggests that at least for this situation and this aircraft (Carenado C152 II) the flight model seems to be not completely off.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My biggest problem with xplane 10 is ported from previous versions, and it really spoils an otherwise interesting experience...Prop aircraft in xplane behave so differently from their RW counterparts in what concerns to slipstream effects that it is really a disappointment at least for me. Using climb power on a single or even tween and a climb pitch you will have siginificative roll (as if the torque was huge) instead of yaw. Adjustments to your prop will be refrelcted in bank, with not even the slightest hint of yaw (even the ball stays mostly centred).The only possible tweak is to include counter.rotating props, or an invisible prop aligned with your true prop, rotating opposite. Not a great deal of a solution! Ah, and I know all about the possibility of canting engines, the fin, etc... It simply doesn't work realistically.In MSFS, even with so many FM limitations, I do not have this BUG!Regarding atmosphere, It would be great if it was possible to tweak it using pluggins, otherwise we are stuck with an ISA atmosphere, where temperature and pressure always follow the same ISA lapse rates with altitude, no matter what weather conditions you're going to fly through. At least in MSFS it is possible to set non-ISA temp lapses, and there are good weather engines, and FSUIPC to overcome some strange weather phenomena...Honestly, in a flight simulator, I couldn't care less about the cars on roads with their nice lights... Some really BASIC flight characteristics have to be reproduced, at least to give an hint of how it is in RL....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Prop aircraft in xplane behave so differently from their RW counterparts in what concerns to slipstream effects that it is really a disappointment at least for me. Using climb power on a single or even tween and a climb pitch you will have siginificative roll (as if the torque was huge) instead of yaw. Adjustments to your prop will be refrelcted in bank, with not even the slightest hint of yaw (even the ball stays mostly centred).The only possible tweak is to include counter.rotating props, or an invisible prop aligned with your true prop, rotating opposite. Not a great deal of a solution! Ah, and I know all about the possibility of canting engines, the fin, etc... It simply doesn't work realistically.

Yep, so true.I'm using X-Plane since early v9 and I only use XP, 'cause I think overall it's so good and such a powerfull tool to learn quite a bit about aerodynamics, basicallcy to visualize things you can't afford in real life.But having to use aileron trim all the time to make a single prop plane fly straight, whilst their real counterpart no nothing about aileron trim, kind of annoys me.It seems to me that it's not an easy one to fix, but Austin should come up with a better solution, than suggesting to use the trim tab option in planemaker and to use aileron trim in flight.The aircraft I have in mind(C172, PA28, DR400....) don't have aileron trim tabs as far as I know, they may have some very slight difference in their wings angle of incidences, so that one wing produces a little bit more lift than the other to counter prop torque. But I think that will only work at one power setting at a certain airspeed, pretty much like a trim tab, I guess.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The one thing I loved in XP9 was the way it felt, not sure if it was realistic or not, but it actually felt like you are floating or flying. In FSX it almost felt like you are flying on tracks, if that makes any sense... It may have had more to do with the 60+ fps I could get in XP9 as well. The only reason I didn't stick with 9 over FSX was because of the lack of addons and the lack of ATC and other A/C.I know 10 isn't much better in that department but at least it is a start. Hopefully over the next couple of years devs will finally give up on FSX and put the effort into learning a new system. I know it will be a painful and slow process but as it stands I just don't see any other reasonable direction if you want to stay in business. It really would be a shame if LR lets this golden opportunity slip by and lets another company goble up the hardcore community.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So just for the record here, going back to previous versions of XP, how long has this slipstream inaccuracy existed? If this is true, and the behaviour you are seeing is dead wrong, and we have active developers, why then has this not been addressed?1. They are not experiencing the same thing you are.2. They believe the models behave accurately3. They are aware of it but for some reason have not corrected it, or it is hardcoded and cannot be change, or it is too much work and not enough people have complained4. The original developer is not there anymore and the new developers do not know how.5. Correcting it would not increase sales.6. The developers including Austin, like the way it behaves and will leave it as is.Hmmm, interesting why this has not been corrected or even been mentioned by the developers as an issue. (Maybe the have talked about it but I am not sure).Bob

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I mostly make jet's so I'm not expert on the prop model.However, you are making a whole lot of assumptions and base a lot of conclusions on them.Thats not how it works. X-Plane is a scientific sim so DOCUMENT your claims;1. Document the real effect in question.2. Document this effect is not present in XP.At this point I can't see you have done any of those, so you don't have a case.I'm not saying you are wrong but, but just throwing a few claims out there isn't good enough - sorry.M

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hi M,referring to the bank instead of yaw subject, I can't really give you much data, although you can extract it from the various output forms XPlane allows us to use, anyway, this is a simple basic feature that we learn from RL experience flying prop aircraft. Austin, being a RL pilot as well, and having flown prop aircraft knows about it for sure. He certainly knows that when, say on a P180, his Cirrus, a C172, etc... he throttles up on takeoff/climb power, the yaw will be practicaly the ONLY effect he will feel from the slipstream of the prop on the tail fin/rudder. Rudder input is used to counteract and on some airplanes it can even become tiresome - say a Rallye or a Robin, where you have to keep quite a good amount of right foot to counter slipstream yaw effects.Xplane's prop airplanes bank instead. The worst part of this problem is that, when cruising, straight and level, bank tendency opposite prop rotation is present as well, and if you reduce power you'll get a right bank tendency (for a clockwise rotating prop as seen from the cockpit).This is also present on twins, unless you make them counter-rotating.For a scientific statement I could use fancy mathematics, with rotationals, to formalize the concept of slipstream, or a softer approach. Google for "prop slipstream". i.e.:http://en.wikipedia....iral_slipstreamAnother good (rather scientific) source of information is http://www.av8n.com/how/detailed here http://www.av8n.com/...elical-propwashBut then, there is something here too:http://www.av8n.com/...-propeller-dragUps! Hum! Ouch! BFC!Soooooo.... maybe I should really try to play around with asymmetric incidence on x-plane.... :sad:Regarding weather modelling and the fact that Xplane's atmosphere is allways an ISA one, with fixed temperature and pressure lapse rates, also RL flying experience talks for itself, but I can understand xplane's simplification. Anyway, when we say that "Going from High to Low, Watch Out Bellow" is satisfied on the pressure side by almost all flight simulators, so that when you travel using QNH and transit from a higher pressure region to a lower pression one, your airplane will be commanded (if flying on AP) to descend, unless you take the correct regional QNH settings. Flying on QNE the same applies.Unfortunately, no simulator, at least that I know, will model the temperature side of the sentence. If you fly from a region where you have a given pressure (p1) at surface and say, at 3000' AGL (p2), and arrive at another, colder, region, with the exact same pressure at ground level (p1) (you can even consider that the two regions have more or less the same altitude relative to mean sea level), the pressure level (p2) that you were intercepting at 3000' will now be lower, because the air is denser there.On both situations, flying an aircraft from high to low, relative to pressure or temperature, will represent danger o CFIT. For those who fly on mountains it is typical to say - mountains look higher in the Winter...MSFS includes the opportunity of defining temperature layers, allowing even for inversions, even if it doesn't really make any big use of it, yet there is no way to define pressure layers... XPlane not even allows to define temperature layers, and it would be great specially when using RW meteo data.

I mostly make jet's so I'm not expert on the prop model.However, you are making a whole lot of assumptions and base a lot of conclusions on them.Thats not how it works. X-Plane is a scientific sim so DOCUMENT your claims;1. Document the real effect in question.2. Document this effect is not present in XP.At this point I can't see you have done any of those, so you don't have a case.I'm not saying you are wrong but, but just throwing a few claims out there isn't good enough - sorry.M

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The worst part of this problem is that, when cruising, straight and level, bank tendency opposite prop rotation is present as well, and if you reduce power you'll get a right bank tendency (for a clockwise rotating prop as seen from the cockpit).

First, I'm not a rw pilot.Do you mean that torque caused by props has no effect at all in real life ! ??I can understand its compensated for a defined amount of power and airspeed. But then, when you reduce power, you should feel the counter effect !

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

First, I'm not a rw pilot.Do you mean that torque caused by props has no effect at all in real life ! ??I can understand its compensated for a defined amount of power and airspeed. But then, when you reduce power, you should feel the counter effect !

On my Van's RV (which Gorem doesn't care to hear about, although it has much to do with real life flight)..............Torque and most likely P-factor is evident sometimes on the takeoff roll, and very noticeable on a touch and go. It's because the power to weight ratio is much more than a Cessna 172, and the wings are short. During these moments, I'm using right aileron to offset it. The effect only last's a few seconds though. Rest of the climbout will be right rudder, with less being used as airspeed increases. For the initial takeoff, lot's of right rudder is required in the RV6. In cruise, it's fixed tab rudder trim only, with aileron trim (which I have) for fuel and passenger balance.L.Adamson

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LarryI never said I don't like hearing much about it, I said we've heard ENOUGH about it. Imagine everyone in avsim mentioned what aircraft they flew in the real world...in every single post they made...and then they made reference to that aircraft in every example about flight models. No one doubts your knowledge in the aviation world, but is it really necessary to mention the Vans in every single post you make?I mean, in over 90% of your posts, you have "In my Vans RV6..." or "On my Vans RV6 that I fly..." or "My Vans RV6 has..." or "When I fly my Vans RV6 in the mountains..."I don't mean any disrespect, but I get it. You're A pilot. But you're not THE pilot. And now we have all been made aware that your wife is a pilot with 114 hours in your Vans.You don't need to mention what you fly. Even my daughter knows what you fly. She reads some of these posts (she fell in love with aircraft when I took her to the airport when she was 3) and she keeps asking me, "What's a "Vans"??"BTW, my name is Goran. not Gorem.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Good to read!I never flew a real Van's RV, although there is at least one here in Portugal :-) Anyway, your post is rather important because it states that different aircraft, specially depending on their mass/wingspan. Even on a rather powerful light aircraft, where the torque should be a lot more noticeable, the bank is small compared to the yaw resulting from the prop slipstream acting on the tail fin/rudder.On bigger prop aircraft, like for instance the BEa ATP, operated in Portugal, Azores islands, by SATA, there is s noticeable (requiring ailleron trim input) right bank when power is reduced from cruise, because the aircraft is designed to be balanced for cruise flight.So, every aircraft is an aircraft, but I believe the torque effect on xplane is somehow too intense.And we're just talking about prop aircraft now - as a glider pilot in RL, and having flown the AS-K21, the way the default glider in xplane feels, not being that bad isn't good either... But that's theme for yet another thread :-) Ah! Goran , tell your daughter about the AS-K21 and... I'd really love my daughters have felt in love for aviation that easily... Or my ex-wife ... You're a lucky guy Goran!

A real life Cessna 172 isn't jumpy. It's rather sedate, and lackluster. That's the problem; as some of the challenging feel of some X-Plane models shouldn't be present at all. That's why I'd get annoyed and quit after five minutes. Things are changing though. I could almost say that some X-Plane models are becoming more like my favorite add-ons for FSX................but that would probably just irritate a few developers... :(

AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

Donation Goals

AVSIM's 2019 Fundraising Goal

Donate to our annual general fund. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.